ReviewCureus2023
Safety and Efficacy of Radiofrequency Ablation and Epidural Steroid Injection for Management of Cervicogenic Headaches and Neck Pain: Meta-Analysis and Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06689371 (Dry Needling Versus Dry Cupping on Pain and Disability in Cervicogenic Headache Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Dry Needling Versus Dry Cupping on Pain and Disability in Cervicogenic Headache Patients
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of real-world, prospective outcomes in patients treated with cervical radiofrequency ablation for chronic pain (RAPID).Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency for cervicogenic headache: a retrospective study focusing on the C2 dorsal root ganglion at the C1-2 level.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysfunction of the cervical spine and its anatomical features, mostly innervated by the C1, C2, and C3 spinal nerves, can result in a secondary headache known as cervicogenic headache (CHA), mainly characterized by unilateral pain. The usefulness of pharmaceutical medications and physical therapy is currently the subject of scant literature. Interventional pain management techniques can be applied when conservative treatment is unsuccessful. This study looks at radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and epidural steroid injection (ESI) to identify their safety and efficacy in managing patients with cervicogenic headaches and neck pain. Three databases - PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Library, and Embase were searched, and 110 studies were identified. Nine screening processes were included for review and meta-analysis. Statistical evaluation was conducted through STATA version 17 (College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC) and effect measures were reported through random effects model risk ratios. The main subject of focus included three following outcomes: incidences of pain relief, degree and duration of pain, and incidences of adverse effects. The findings showed both interventions relieved pain by a factor of >50%, demonstrating a relative effects risk ratio of 1.45 (-0.50, 3.39) for RFA: pain relief, 84.76 (82.82, 86.69) RFA: adverse effects, and 19.46 (18.80, 20.11) ESI: pain relief at 95% confidence interval. The efficacy of RFA and ESI differ. Both interventions are effective in the reduction of cervicogenic headache pain intensity. However, their complication rates and pain duration are considerably different. With ESI, the headaches can still recur weekly, demanding the use of oral analgesics to deal with them. On the other hand, RFA has a low complication rate. Improving guidance from imaging technologies, RFA has the potential to be the most effective interventional treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.